Infinite Loop —

A look at Apple’s love for DRM and consumer lock-ins

Apple makes great products—you'll get no argument from us. But Apple also …

Apple is a company known for many things, but embracing copyright freedoms has not been one of them. The company loves creating new and innovative products that challenge the world's perception of what it thought it wanted, but it then turns around and aggressively protects those products from being poked or prodded too much by curious onlookers. Some believe Apple is in the right to do this, while others feel the company could set a better example when it comes to using (or abusing) copyright legislation for its own self-serving purposes.

This is a topic that recently came up during our Premier Subscriber chat with Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Fred von Lohmann. von Lohmann pointed out that Google—a company that is often compared to Apple—has been at the forefront of the pro-innovation copyright agenda, fighting the good fight on behalf of tech companies and their users for many years. When it comes to Apple... not so much. The two companies could not be more different. Let's take a moment to summarize some of Apple's latest pro-DRM and pro-DMCA moves.

Apple <3s DRM

Apple has insisted for years that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free world if music, movie, and TV producers would get behind it. Those walls have largely been broken down when it comes to selling some forms of media (namely music), but Apple isn't exactly anti-DRM in any other sense. Aside from still offering DRM-laden movies and TV shows on iTunes (which can reasonably be attributed to content producers), Apple itself is happy to employ DRM to keep its own products from being used in unapproved ways.

The most obvious is the fact that the company uses DRM to guarantee that iPods and iPhones can't be used with any other software besides iTunes. Not only that, but Apple also uses technology to block out non-Apple devices from syncing with iTunes—� la the Palm Pre saga.

Given the above, Apple's stance against iPhone jailbreakers isn't too surprising. Jailbreaking allows third parties to create applications and add additional functionality to the iPhone that wouldn't otherwise be allowed, including running background applications and inevitably unlocking the device to be used on unapproved carriers.

Apple argues that this kind of activity is against the DMCA and should be illegal. Why? Because jailbreaking, to Apple, means circumvention of DRM, and why would anyone want to circumvent DRM except to do illegal activities? In its argument to Congress earlier this year, Apple said that the "class of works" (that is, unapproved software) that would come out of jailbroken iPhones infringe on Apple's copyrights—not to mention that such an activity could lead to the total and utter meltdown of the cellular network.

The EFF, on the other hand, says that neither jailbreaking nor installing legally produced programs would violate Apple's copyrights, and that's why jailbreaking should continue to be allowed under the DMCA (at least for the next three years). And, let's be honest here: there are relatively few iPhone users in the world who even want to jailbreak their phones. The threat of a hostile takeover by people using rogue iPhones is practically nonexistent, but Apple wants to exercise its control over all users, not just most of them.

Apple vs. people talking on the Internet

Again, this builds upon Apple's overall stance on DRM and users "breaking" it. Earlier this year, Apple took action on that stance by making legal threats against the company behind BluWiki, OdioWorks LLC, after members posted information discussing how to use the iPod with third-party software. Apple accused OdioWorks of disseminating information to circumvent Apple's DRM and enabling copyright infringement by hosting the pages on iTunesDB, which Apple believed was in violation of the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA.

OdioWorks first complied, and then filed a lawsuit against Apple in order to defend the rights of its users. "Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussion," OdioWorks owner Sam Odio said in a statement at the time.

The company asked the court for a judgment saying the discussion didn't violate the DMCA, but that challenge never got a chance to be tested in court—Apple decided to back off in July, notifying the company that it was withdrawing its takedown notifications. However, this wasn't the success that some had hoped for, as Apple didn't withdraw because of anyone's First Amendment rights. "Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone," the company said in its letter.

This means that if someone decided to post a new discussion to BluWiki discussing how to use the iPod with third-party software under Apple's new authentication methods, such threats could (and probably will) bubble up again.

It won't be over anytime soon

These are just a few (albeit major) examples of the steps Apple has taken to squelch open discussion and tinkering with its products, despite the fact that these activities barely affect the company's bottom line. Though most of Apple's customers don't know or care about these issues, they do affect us all to some degree or another—especially if Apple tries to use the DMCA in what some consider to be abusive ways. It certainly seems that Apple has embraced the concept of using DRM for the purposes of control, and this behavior is likely to continue for a long time.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to go make a call on my iPhone while watching some movies on my Apple TV.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

Buy a Mac, then go to an Apple retail store and say you're clueless and need help setting it up, and see how much personal time and attention they spend with you. That's why consumers like Apple... I was at the SoHo Apple Store in NYC recently, and saw an 80-odd year old woman being shown by a 22 year old kid how to set up Gmail and Hotmail on her new MBP - you would not get that in Best Buy.

Is this scalable as user numbers increase? Is it scalable to the enterprise?

Good question. The answer is yes, assuming that the price of MacBooks remain at a premium. It cannot be maintained if Apple starts selling $400 laptops. The service is part of the premium price.

Another personal experience about service at the Apple Store; A friend of ours (who used to take up hours of time with support calls including from companies, friends and co-workers such as me) explained to us (my wife and I) why she switched to the Mac. She took her Windows laptop to the Apple Store and the staff for no additional charge took all of her data and loaded it onto her new MacBook. This included addresses, favorites, etc. She has been a Mac user ever since. Any problems, she calls Apple or takes her laptop to the store and they take care of it. - I think it needs to be remembered that some computer users want their computer to have the ease of use of an appliance. Apple since the introduction of the Mac has tried to provide that kind of user experience and over the years they have been getting closer to that goal.

BB ;-)

But wasn't it also Apple that denied the faulty Macbook (or iMac, can't remember exactly) screens a few years ago and even censored their own forums?

When it comes to music, Apple allows you to have no DRM. Music has always been available in DRM free formats. Apple was forced to use DRM in order for music companies to allow the music to be played. However, one can always rip one's own CDs and have DRM free music on your Mac or iPod. Or you can buy from Amazon DRM free MP3s to play on one's Mac or iPod. For music, there is no consumer lock in.

When it comes to movies, Movies that Apple sells HAVE TO HAVE DRM. That is the only way that studios will allow content to be downloaded or streamed. However, one can certainly rip one's own content and play it on Apple hardware. And one can certainly create one's own content and play it on Apple hardware. Movies have NEVER come without DRM. The most important DRM is having to go to the movie theater to see a movie in the first place. For example, since when can you see Avatar without having to go to the movie theater? Yeah right. The movie theater is THE DRM of choice for Hollywood studios. For Movies, there is always consumer lock-in. But this is forced by movie studios, not Apple.

If you want Blue Ray disks to run on a Mac, you better believe there is going to be heavy DRM. This is forced by Blue Ray licensing.

Movie Studios are also trying to close any Analog route to copy content. This is why HDCP is going to be enforced on every new computer in the near future.

Apple certainly owns its software. You are only licensing its use. Thus, Jailbreakers are illegal. Sorry, but that's that.

Apple did not write the DMCA law. Congress did. It makes certain things ILLEGAL. If your behavior goes against the DMCA and Apple doesn't like it, Apple is certainly within its rights to call you on it. Breaking the DMCA by cracking DRM is certainly ILLEGAL. That's simply the law of the U.S. And the U.S. wants to spread it to all of Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.

Apple's DRM for apps has certainly been a boon for App developers. The DRM prevents piracy. This makes any app developer certainly VERY HAPPY AND WEALTHY. This is why there are over 140,000 apps for the iPhone. On any other platform, the consumers expect their apps should be free. This means piracy has a huge market for Android and other "DRM Free" platforms.

DRM has both good and bad. But Apple has certainly made it GOOD FOR THE REST OF US. Apple's platform stands for quality. DRM helps keep it that way.

If you are too poor to afford Apple (and even poor people have iPhones), then GET A SECOND JOB. Get off your hind-end. Only cheap, poor lazy people rag on Apple.

Originally posted by JournalBot:Apple makes great products—you'll get no argument from us. But Apple also likes keeping tight control over those products, and if anyone outside of Apple's blessed circle attempts to get in, the company is more than willing to try to use (or abuse) the law to its advantage.

Someone stated that they didn't purchase movies from iTunes because of the DRM but then how do you purchase content? DVD's (bluray and standard) have DRM. All of the legal download sites use some form of DRM. The difference is that iTunes DRM is very liberal (within Apples walls).

5 computers and an unlimited number of iPod's, iPhone's and AppleTV units attached to any one of those said computers. Talk about a deal!! I purchase a movie and 2 computers, 3 iphones, an 2 ipods and 2 appleTV's in my house have legal access. One computer at my dad's house, his AppleTV and an iPod. One computer at my brothers house, his AppleTV his two iPhones and two ipods. And a friend of mine's computer 3 ipods and 3 appleTV's all have legal access to that content.

If this DRM's wrong, I'm not sure I want to be right!

Oh ya, and correct me if I'm wrong but every HDTV shipped in the past 4+ years includes DRM and if you want to be able to talk to them (for sure) you have to support it in your connectors too..... Right? Don't all of the laptops with HDMI have to support DRM? This is just a stupid point in your discussion. IMHO

Originally posted by usku:Wow! Look at all the Maclots screaming bloody murder.....

If Apple is prop cosumer, choice and angel faced....

Why can't I put my porn vids in any format I want on my Ipod?

/snip

Actually there is a technical reason for this. Small devices like the iPod or iPhone can offer hardware acceleration for h.264, but to include the ability to decode all formats would require more CPU grunt for general purpose decoding. There is a reason why Atom powered netbooks cannot view all web video content, and a reason dedicated devices cannot decode any format.

Another personal experience about service at the Apple Store; A friend of ours (who used to take up hours of time with support calls including from companies, friends and co-workers such as me) explained to us (my wife and I) why she switched to the Mac. She took her Windows laptop to the Apple Store and the staff for no additional charge took all of her data and loaded it onto her new MacBook. This included addresses, favorites, etc. She has been a Mac user ever since. Any problems, she calls Apple or takes her laptop to the store and they take care of it. - I think it needs to be remembered that some computer users want their computer to have the ease of use of an appliance. Apple since the introduction of the Mac has tried to provide that kind of user experience and over the years they have been getting closer to that goal.

As long as the mac user base stays roughly where it is, sure, it's great service. I've used it myself for hardware on my Macs.

However, I have huge concerns about scalability. *IF* apple were to grow in the market, the limited number of stores won't be able to provide the same space. As it stands, the stores are packed to the gills during service appointmnets.

Why do others have to submit there software offerings to Apple for approval?

Too hard to ask that software not be spyware, crapware, or flat out not work as expected?

quote:

Why can't I install the Mac OS onto hardware of my choosing?

Because Apple sells Macs with OSX as a package, not like Microsoft who decides to sell Vista to OEMs who fuck up the whole situation by putting it on the shittiest hardware which causes a class action lawsuit.

quote:

Why does Steve Jobs wear those god awful mock turtle necks and demand that his loyal Maclots bring out the torches anytime anyone states something that is for the most part correct yet anti Apple?

Because you keep Mr. Artie MacStrawman alive and kicking.

quote:

Seriously, Apple is just as Evil as Microsoft, except Microsoft is worlds better at Evil and more profitable.

Microsoft fucked up the Java platform and web standards to keep people on the Windows platform. Apple did the same thing except without the bait and switch part. Big difference in my opinion.

Originally posted by usku:Wow! Look at all the Maclots screaming bloody murder.....

If Apple is prop cosumer, choice and angel faced....

Why can't I put my porn vids in any format I want on my Ipod?

/snip

Actually there is a technical reason for this. Small devices like the iPod or iPhone can offer hardware acceleration for h.264, but to include the ability to decode all formats would require more CPU grunt for general purpose decoding. There is a reason why Atom powered netbooks cannot view all web video content, and a reason dedicated devices cannot decode any format.

or a more easy to code "drivers" for DSP, like whats found on the TI OMAP series of products...

I'm mostly an OSX user. I've a few Macs, an iPhone, an iPod, an Apple TV (don't laugh), but I agree with the gist of the article. Apple really would like you to stay within the confines of their ecosystem, and they'll apply certain restrictions to make it uncomfortable to leave those confines. Personally I don't see a problem with that. For the vast majority of users it will result in a very simple and well organised platform. You'll pay for it in certain ways, but no-one is getting conned in this. It's a consumer choice. Apple aren't a charity and I personally believe that they offer reasonable value for their goods.

Of course, I've jail-broken and unlocked my iPhone as I wanted to multitask and use my own sim. One of my "Macs" is a so-called "Hackintosh" as I wanted a quad core box for my video editing and found that I couldn't justify the expense of an inferior in performance Mac Pro. The Apple TV was "jail-broken" too as I didn't like being tied to iTunes and the limited audio and video formats available. I even installed Rockbox in my iPod as I have lots of music in formats that aren't compatible with iPod/iTunes. So, all in all I've embraced the Apple eco-system and then broken it from within by adapting it to suit my needs. Apple, to their credit, make such warranty-disabling changes quite trivial.

The alternatives? Windows, which is still a dog's breakfast, or Linux, which is nice and elegant and consistent but lacks cohesion (and truly great applications). For all of its faults, OSX is the least worst option for me, and I suspect for many Apple fans (not "fanbois" please).

Examples of strange limitations are: Why can't I use an iPhone as USB storage. Why can't I install whatever application I want on an iPod touch. Why is iTunes tied only to iPods.

.

There are a few apps that allow you to save files on your iPhone or iPod Touch (although not as simply as a USB device). Since syncing is a major component of the overall experience, managing direct folder transfer might be a difficult challenge. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of that functionality added in a later OS update.

A few people here have made arguments for why the iPhone is tied to the App store (ie to help maintain exclusivity to carriers, to avoid potential malware problems, to maintain agreements with carriers), I expect that Apple simply doesn't want to have a separate OS for the iPod Touch.

iTunes isn't open for use to other manufacturers because Apple created it to support their products. Any other company can write their own software to sync with iTunes.

Wow, I really wish I hadn't read the half of this article that I did. Waste of my time. Was there some extra information that you were supposed to give us that I missed? This just seems like a summary of what Apple has done over the years.

The problem is not Apple, or DRM or DMCA or monopoly or.... It is consumers & users. If things that Apple does are so bad, why do people buy Apple products? If they don't like to be tied-in with Apple, they are free to buy other products.

So, for those who have problems with Apple and their practices, there is a very simple solution - don't buy Apple products. There are other functionally similar products available from other manufacturers, who (in some cases) don't force users into "unacceptable" agreements, usage, etc...

It is kind-of amusing hearing complaints from the same people, who think that they have to have something Apple. Why? You can take your money to anyone else, why to Apple, if you hate it so much?

Buy a Mac, then go to an Apple retail store and say you're clueless and need help setting it up, and see how much personal time and attention they spend with you. That's why consumers like Apple... I was at the SoHo Apple Store in NYC recently, and saw an 80-odd year old woman being shown by a 22 year old kid how to set up Gmail and Hotmail on her new MBP - you would not get that in Best Buy.

Is this scalable as user numbers increase? Is it scalable to the enterprise?

Good question. The answer is yes, assuming that the price of MacBooks remain at a premium. It cannot be maintained if Apple starts selling $400 laptops. The service is part of the premium price.

Another personal experience about service at the Apple Store; A friend of ours (who used to take up hours of time with support calls including from companies, friends and co-workers such as me) explained to us (my wife and I) why she switched to the Mac. She took her Windows laptop to the Apple Store and the staff for no additional charge took all of her data and loaded it onto her new MacBook. This included addresses, favorites, etc. She has been a Mac user ever since. Any problems, she calls Apple or takes her laptop to the store and they take care of it. - I think it needs to be remembered that some computer users want their computer to have the ease of use of an appliance. Apple since the introduction of the Mac has tried to provide that kind of user experience and over the years they have been getting closer to that goal.

BB ;-)

But wasn't it also Apple that denied the faulty Macbook (or iMac, can't remember exactly) screens a few years ago and even censored their own forums?

Rumors and gossip doesn't mean reality. First of all I can't think of an example of censorship about faults in Apple products. There are multiple discussions for years about Apple product issues on Apple forums such as problems cleaning the notorious Mighty Mouse.

- As for replacing the faulty iMac screens, several people on Ars said they had this done by Apple. I did too at the Apple Store (though I was still covered by Apple Care at that time). But there was no problem getting this fixed.

- Compare this very good service with Apple and the poor service I've personally have had to deal with from other tech companies including Dell, MCaffe and Linksys. It's obvious that Apple's service is better. This is no secret. My step brother is a complete Microsoft guy (MS Certified tech) and he admits that he doesn't even deal with most vendor tech support because it is so bad and tries to immediately if possible find someone who is competent and who speaks decent English.

A few people here have made arguments for why the iPhone is tied to the App store (ie to help maintain exclusivity to carriers, to avoid potential malware problems, to maintain agreements with carriers), I expect that Apple simply doesn't want to have a separate OS for the iPod Touch.

iTunes isn't open for use to other manufacturers because Apple created it to support their products. Any other company can write their own software to sync with iTunes.

Yet some people can come along and jail break apple iphone os and still have it run all the apps from the app storm and more not from the app store. Though the whole problem with the app store is that it really should have been nothing more than a malicious code check. Rather than a filter for what apple deemed not good.

Then the fundamental problem with itunes is that it should either be a media organizer and syncing program for apple products or a media organizer and a store front. The way it is right now it gives to much of a preference to apple products by 1 linking the store directly to the syncing of the player and 2 by using data that others cannot access. The only way I can see itunes really being fair while keeping the same abilities is to set up a plug in type system that other manufactures can use to tell itunes how to talk to their device.

Originally posted by juanxer:For example, Apple won't allow DRM-less audiobooks in the iTMS, even if the author wishes to and Audible agrees.

That's a current restriction based on the technology. Allowing the device to support both locked and unlocked files, and a store and backend infrastructure that supprts it, is no small change. But the real issue; it's political. By supporting non-DRM books from one firm, Apple risks loosing the ausiobooks from the others, which are much bigger and a larger share of the audiobook revenue.

Apple has always permitted DRM-laden audio to exist side by side with unlocked songs. Why should it be so hard to do the same thing with audio books?

Yeah Jacqui, before posting this kinda shit, you should like read Ars Technica more often.

There was an article just last year, or maybe 2008, about a guy who went and interviewed all the media bigwigs and found that they absolutely _hate_ all mp3 players. Why can't you copy to and from the iPod except via iTunes? Because these guys see the portable mp3 player as nothing more than a portable piracy device.

Most of your article falls down from there on in.

Either you didn't do any research, or Ars is paying you to troll these days.

Yes Microsoft was evil beyond comprehension, but that does not mean that Apple hasn't become as evil as Microsoft was at their worst. In fact Balmer seems to me to have steered Microsoft toward more gentle approach, while producing the goods quickly and without technical problems... something Gates could never do.

Apple started evil under Jobs. He had closed systems for everything. Seems the vaginas filled with sand fangirls have forgotten the decade of paying twice the amount for Apple licensed hardware like printers and modems. Apple sensibly threw Steves arse out of the company, and Apple became a more open company, using real standards, and licensing their tech to other manufacturers. Once Steve came back, it all went to hell again. Not to mention that Steve was credited for the iMac, iPod and other tools that Apple had been working on for years, or had already released into the marketplace. Even the industrial design that Apple had developed while Steve was thankfully absent was eventually credited to Steve once he came back.

Reality doesn't exist for angry Apple fangirls, and their world is crumbling because of people like myself.. who became a real "Switcher" and switched back to Microsoft after a decade in the mess that is Apple hardware/software... we are letting the world know that Apple is no promised land, and the world is starting to listen.

I second that I hope that Jobs dies soon. I will throw a real party the day it happens... when he can't jump the organ transplant queue any longer to save his evil arse. I suppose on that day, Apple fangirls will no longer have Steves rectum to crawl into for comfort.

Originally posted by sismoc:This is why I pray every day for the death of Steve Jobs.

You pray alone.

No he doesn't... Don't make a liar out of yourself by assuming the world believes the same Sh*t you do. Most five year old children have more developed brains than that and realise that people can want things that they do not.

iWorks has nothing locking it into a particular machine except Mac hardware, neither does iLife or Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server. There's no ridiculous system checks like Microsoft has. iWork hasn't got serial numbers anymore. Only the pro end software has serial numbers but even that's largely not looked at so long as the serial is correct it doesn't monitor the software beyond that.

Apple's comments about the threat to the cell networks is valid in light of recent jailbroken iPhones getting hacked so their DRM in reality protects YOU from the biggest threat to your devices... YOU.

I work as a systems engineer and 60+% of the problems I face are caused by users so Apple's protecting users from themselves makes our job a hell of a lot easier so that we can concentrate on real problems.

There's no DRM that stops Windows from running on Macs nor is there for Linux to be installed on Macs. There is some form of management preventing Mac OS X from running on any hardware other than Macs but then Apple is entitled to do this BECAUSE IT MAKES THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE THEMSELVES.

If Lenovo, HP, Dell, etc made their own OS you don't think they'd do the same as Apple? You're a grade A idiot if you think they won't.

If everyone was honest and played by the rules then no one would need DRM but the world is anything but honest and rarely does it play by the rules so you have to protect what you have. It's no different to you having locks and alarms on your doors at home to protect your property so shut the hell up when Apple does it because they have the right to protect THEIR property from people who want to steal it and make money of that stolen gear.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:For all you apple fanboys calling foul, I would like you to spend some time in the apple section. Ars normally spends more time blowing apple than bashing them.

I mean I find the baby shaking app as tasteless as most, but who is apple to tell us that we cannot play a baby shaking simulator?

Of course I won't buy their shit anyway, I don't even own a fucking ipod, a normal MP3 player is fine with me.

Oh that and yuppies, I fucking hate yuppies.

I confess to being an Apple fanboy, but even I don't understand why they feel a trashy app will tarnish their image.

I would agree with you except for the fact that everyone including those political groups got involved with it. I'm sure you would want all that bad PR. And, is bad PR good for business? You know, the reason why Apple does what they do, to make money?

Originally posted by lowededwookie:Apple's comments about the threat to the cell networks is valid in light of recent jailbroken iPhones getting hacked so their DRM in reality protects YOU from the biggest threat to your devices... YOU.

Which is why we shouldn't be allowed to run anything on laptops that hasn't been approved by the OS vendor, right? And presumably you condemn Apple for building SSH right into OS X where it can trivially be enabled by clueless users with weak passwords.

quote:

so shut the hell up when Apple does it because they have the right to protect THEIR property from people who want to steal it and make money of that stolen gear.

Tying is forcing consumers to buy an unrelated good to get the good they want. It will never be applied to Macs. For one thing the goods are closely related, for another Apple doesn't force consumers to buy MacOSX. Instead they give it away with the hardware. The argument has no traction in OSX upgrades, anyone is perfectly capable of buying the boxed software without buying a Mac. Has anyone ever forced a consumer to buy a Mac when they buy an OSX upgrade? If they did, that might possibly be an argument a judge would listen to.

Originally posted by Shikarnov:The problem with DRM isn't companies trying to preserve/protect users' experience. It's when companies try to limit/eliminate Fair Use. Buy Star Trek online, burn it to DVD, get sued. Buy it on DVD, rip it to your handheld, get sued. That's just ridiculous.

There's a huge difference between the old days of analogue audio and video recordings copied onto magnetic tape. The sound and image quality on EVERY subsequent generation degenerated. With digital recordings we're looking at data transfer, NOT recording, so what you get is an exact replica of the original. This changes the scenario from the days of magnetic tape.

SO, in order to sell digital copies of music via iTunes, Apple was forced by the record labels to use DRM. Eventually, with the incredible number of sales, the record companies realized that DRM wasn't really necessary and it is being dropped. This will eventually happen with movies.